Facebook CoFounder Wants $3 Trillion Tax On Rich To Fund Universal Basic Income

[Hydrogen]

Universal Basic Income doesn't work, it makes people less motivated to work as they're receiving money for just breathing. People need to work, it's the thing that stimulates. Plus the fact that UBI isn't even working in nations it's being tried in now, why ruin the USA with it?

Hey squatz, you're a good poster on these forums, I hope you don't mind me offering a different perspective here.   

Here's an old article depicting one potential reason why UBI could work in the USA. Its hosted on think progress with the title: "Americans have spent enough money on a broken plane to buy every homeless person a mansion".


AN F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IN ITS NATURAL HABITAT: ON THE GROUND CREDIT: AP PHOTO/LOCKHEED MARTIN

Just days before its international debut at an airshow in the United Kingdom, the entire fleet of the Pentagon’s next generation fighter plane — known as the F-35 II Lightning, or the Joint Strike Fighter — has been grounded, highlighting just what a boondoggle the project has been. With the vast amounts spent so far on the aircraft, the United States could have worked wonders, including providing every homeless person in the U.S. a $600,000 home.

It’s hard to argue against the need to modernize aircraft used to defend the country and counter enemies overseas, especially if you’re a politician. But the Joint Strike Fighter program has been a mess almost since its inception, with massive cost overruns leading to its current acquisition price-tag of $398.6 billion — an increase of $7.4 billion since last year. That breaks down to costing about $49 billion per year since work began in 2006 and the project is seven years behind schedule. Over its life-cycle, estimated at about 55 years, operating and maintaining the F-35 fleet will cost the U.S. a little over $1 trillion. By contrast, the entirety of the Manhattan Project — which created the nuclear bomb from scratch — cost about $55 billion in today’s dollars.

Link: https://thinkprogress.org/americans-have-spent-enough-money-on-a-broken-plane-to-buy-every-homeless-person-a-mansion-

If bloat and waste were eliminated from budgets, like that of the F-35, with state spending being more streamlined and efficient. UBI could become unaffordable. If I remember right, there are countries like denmark which can afford to give college students something like a $1,000 to $2,000 stipend for university/higher education.

Money may not so much the issue as it may be dysfunctionality, nepotism and waste on the part of the state.

[1714941917]

1714941917

[1714941917]

1714941917

[1714941917]

1714941917

[Hell-raiser]

Regarding automation destroying jobs, you should not forget that jobless people won't be able to buy the goods produced by the automated plants, so there should necessarily be a balance between automation and employment. Automation without demand is meaningless (it would only cause overproduction), but demand is not possible without employment.

While true in very general and over-simplified terms, this doesn't pan out much in the real world. The US used to be the manufacturing hub of the world, but when those jobs started getting lost to automation and outsourcing, the US didn't suddenly become a country of poor, unemployed workers.

Good turn, I love it. Now you added outsourcing to automation as you likely think it would make your point more valid. Automation doesn't come about in a year, it is in fact a gradual process which literally takes decades to develop, with a lot of people involved in the process in the meanwhile. Truth be told, it never stopped for the last 200 years, in the very least.

Also, production comes from demand, not the other way around. You can produce anything, but if there's no demand for the product or services created, the venture will soon fail. When people demand a good or service, you can afford to employ people to provide it, or create it through automation. There is little risk of overproducing anything because the market naturally adjusts price, so it's a problem that solves itself.

Oh, here you go again on your favorite path of twisting your point. Indeed, production comes from demand by people who are still employed. But when the productive capacities (which are being automated) come on stream and become operational, people get fired, and all of a sudden there is no more demand. Then yet more people become jobless (as you claim yourself, just in case) and so on. It seems like you have to make up your mind at this point, whether the market "naturally adjusts" and "the problem solves itself" or it is a route to complete destruction of the economy.

[avikz]

There are a few good points made here.

This is one potential scenario under which universal basic income might have a hope of succeeding and balancing out global economies.

It could easily turn into a disaster like social security where excess collected taxes are consistently spent on things which have absolutely nothing to do with social security. Many taxes like road taxes, which are supposed to be utilized towards maintaining roads. And telecom taxes which in theory, are supposed to be spent on maintaining or upgrading internet or telecom infrastructure are often spent on war in the middle east / programs which are 100% unrelated to those things.

The potential for disaster or misuse of funds is very high. But there is a slim chance the program could be successful and achieve its intended end goal of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, like robin hood, in an effort to stabilize economies and prevent societies and civilization from ultimately collapsing. And things like that. Whatever the worst case, scorched earth, scenario is here in regard to things like UBI.   

Firstly lets call it "USA Basic Income scheme" instead of calling it Universal, because that's what it is. Secondly, the scheme looks good in theory but hard as hell to implement. It seems like the government has to take up a job like Robinhood. get money from the riches and distribute it to the poor segment of the society. This is not a sustainable model at all. If the government wants to provide basic income to the poors, they should look at two very important factors,

1. Providing basic free education till graduation and provide subsidy after that for higher education.
2. Look at the health of the production and heavy engineering industry and facilitate for more such industries.

These are the only ways to ensure a basic income to every household of the country. Government need to empower people instead of distributing free fund to make it sustainable in long run. Providing free fund to every household will certainly boost the retail market for a while because some people will have higher purchasing power, but it will be stagnant soon after the initial boost. The growth will be capped upto that limit.

However, empowering people and the future generation by providing free education will have a very significant impact on the economy along with facilitation to open up new production industry. People will be more equipped with knowledge and the production industries will be there to provide them with jobs, which will in turn ensure a certain level of income to them. This is how a sustainable economic model can be built. Taking funds from the riches and re-distributing them to the poors will have a very limited effect and not sustainable. 

[Hell-raiser]

There are a few good points made here.

This is one potential scenario under which universal basic income might have a hope of succeeding and balancing out global economies.

It could easily turn into a disaster like social security where excess collected taxes are consistently spent on things which have absolutely nothing to do with social security. Many taxes like road taxes, which are supposed to be utilized towards maintaining roads. And telecom taxes which in theory, are supposed to be spent on maintaining or upgrading internet or telecom infrastructure are often spent on war in the middle east / programs which are 100% unrelated to those things.

The potential for disaster or misuse of funds is very high. But there is a slim chance the program could be successful and achieve its intended end goal of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, like robin hood, in an effort to stabilize economies and prevent societies and civilization from ultimately collapsing. And things like that. Whatever the worst case, scorched earth, scenario is here in regard to things like UBI.   

Firstly lets call it "USA Basic Income scheme" instead of calling it Universal, because that's what it is. Secondly, the scheme looks good in theory but hard as hell to implement. It seems like the government has to take up a job like Robinhood. get money from the riches and distribute it to the poor segment of the society. This is not a sustainable model at all. If the government wants to provide basic income to the poors, they should look at two very important factors,

You may be surprised but that's exactly how the US government acts toward other nations. Uncle Sam (the present day Robinhood) basically milks the whole world. Indeed, most of the milk goes to the rich and superrich, but something goes to the lower tiers of social hierarchy as well. Ultimately, it can be said that every American household is already subsidized by the rest of the world. What is it if not some weird form of universal income ("USA Basic Income scheme")?

His life was full until he tried to milk the bull. So I'm also curious if this scheme is sustainable, but so far it has been working flawlessly.

[Similificator]

Well, in a way, it could be a very big help to others since it can literally be pointed on to the less fortunate so they can get things they need most. But the downside of this would be the feelings of the millionaires or billionaires out there that are working hard for their money. They would surely hate the thought of this since it is the fruit of their labor and would hurt for them. But I think there would be some that wouldn't mind sharing.

[jaysabi]

Regarding automation destroying jobs, you should not forget that jobless people won't be able to buy the goods produced by the automated plants, so there should necessarily be a balance between automation and employment. Automation without demand is meaningless (it would only cause overproduction), but demand is not possible without employment.

While true in very general and over-simplified terms, this doesn't pan out much in the real world. The US used to be the manufacturing hub of the world, but when those jobs started getting lost to automation and outsourcing, the US didn't suddenly become a country of poor, unemployed workers.

Good turn, I love it. Now you added outsourcing to automation as you likely think it would make your point more valid. Automation doesn't come about in a year, it is in fact a gradual process which literally takes decades to develop, with a lot of people involved in the process in the meanwhile. Truth be told, it never stopped for the last 200 years, in the very least.

Also, production comes from demand, not the other way around. You can produce anything, but if there's no demand for the product or services created, the venture will soon fail. When people demand a good or service, you can afford to employ people to provide it, or create it through automation. There is little risk of overproducing anything because the market naturally adjusts price, so it's a problem that solves itself.

Oh, here you go again on your favorite path of twisting your point. Indeed, production comes from demand by people who are still employed. But when the productive capacities (which are being automated) come on stream and become operational, people get fired, and all of a sudden there is no more demand. Then yet more people become jobless (as you claim yourself, just in case) and so on. It seems like you have to make up your mind at this point, whether the market "naturally adjusts" and "the problem solves itself" or it is a route to complete destruction of the economy.

You must be quite insecure in your points if you have to wind up your own posts with so much bluster before getting to anything that resembles an intelligent counter point, although with the amount of shitposting that goes on in your typical response, calling it "intelligent" is being generous.

As an example, you posted about how automation was going to create jobless people who will no longer be contributing to demand for the products created by those automated jobs, and when I pointed out the superficiality of that sentiment and countered with the fact that this hasn't proven out in practice, you tried to cover up for the fact that you had no response by accusing me of changing the point somewhat by adding in outsourcing. In case you didn't notice, and you clearly didn't, whether the job is lost to outsourcing or automation, the lost job is lost and it doesn't change the fact that the US was the manufacturing hub of the world and now it isn't, and we're not a destitute country like you would have to believe if buying into your premise. Your second paragraph evidently assumes that once you lose your job, you drop out of the demand pool forever. I won't bother responding to that and give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't actually believe that.